Today, G4 posted a Fresh Ink segment I recorded a couple months back. It's me talking about three of my favorite comics, three books that I feel are often overlooked in the list of "great." The video is embedded below the cut.
Been on vacation this week. It's been less vacation than I'd have liked, honestly. A barrage of small annoyances that culminated in the death of my laptop last night. I'm hoping a resurrection is possible, but it won't be until this Sunday/Monday before I know the prognosis. And, of course, since I was on vacation, the last back-up was made before I left home. So, yes, work has been lost.
Not the first time, won't be the last, but everytime it happens, it still sucks all the same.
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
ruckawriter- ruckawriter
- Website
Page Summary
- lucky_sometimes : (no subject) [+0]
- tranceptor : (no subject) [+0]
- mercuryeric : (no subject) [+3]
- hdefined : (no subject) [+18]
- lithera : (no subject) [+0]
- jared465 : (no subject) [+2]
- jaywillson : Great job [+0]
- mikeperkins : (no subject) [+0]
- mikeperkins : (no subject) [+1]
- aliasjack : (no subject) [+0]
Comments
Hoping the whole 'cloud computing' concept puts a lot of that to bed.
Strangely not a lot of people I know talk about Matt Wagner all that much, well aside from the covers he did for Green Arrow. But I've been a fan of Grendel forever, hell I'm still trying to get a hold of the original run of Hunter Rose. Anyway, I didn't know much about Mage, or anything beyond it being about some dude wielding a mighty baseball bat. Sounds interesting though, I just might look into it.
Those are some good recommendations.
The killings are swift, brutal, and terrifying.
(Sorry to hear about the lost work, man. That totally sucks.)
:(
-E
Dead.
Dead dead dead.
Sad, now.
-E
By ironic, I don't mean hypocritical. Your comics don't reek of the cynicism or self-loathing found in many mainstream superhero books in which the creators are afraid to take the light traditions, themes, or characters seriously, or when they play them super seriously to the point that it's all nonsense.
But your books are nonetheless quite grim and serious. I'd never call Gotham Central a "fun" book, although I enjoyed it a whole lot. There were parts of your earlier Detective run that were fun, but it wasn't a quality I'd pick as the most defining.
I just think that you of all people shouldn't tell people that comics should be fun, since you're talented enough to show people how to make them serious and gripping without being pretentious, cynical, or ashamed of their roots.
If you enjoyed Gotham Central then it was, by definition, fun.
Don't mistake "funny" for "fun."
Greg thinks that we need to enjoy our comics. If you enjoyed his, then his work is fun.
We don't get to agree or disagree with definitions. They are definitions. If we disagree with the definition of a word then we are misusing the word.
Fun means enjoyable.
If you enjoy something, it is enjoyable. Therefore it is fun.
It may not be light-hearted. It may not be whimsical. It may not be funny. Those are all things I think you guys are assuming is meant by fun. But those qualities have their own terms: whimsical, light-hearted, and funny.
Just sayin'
Words have meanings, and if they don't, they don't have power.
Besides, while usage has augmented and/or altered definition, that is a gradual thing, done slowly over time, and not the result of direct choices to ignore definitions (excepting politically motivated usage changes).
We shouldn't aspire to change language just because we don't want to use the right words. We should aspire to use the right words.
Of course, maybe I should just join the 'usage trumps definition' movement.
From now on, I'll refer to the color purple as blue and a screwdriver as a hammer. Who's with me?
It's like saying all rectangles are squares just because all squares are rectangles. It's not accurate.
I'm referencing the definition of fun.
The definition above says it all.
Fun, as an adjective, is defined as "providing entertainment, amusement, or enjoyment."
It need not provide amusement AND enjoyment.
If you enjoy it, it provides enjoyment, therefore, by the definition of fun, it is fun.
That's my point - we have decided that fun means funny or whimsical or light hearted.
But if it is something you enjoy, it can be described as fun.
Not all worthwhile art needs to be fun. I don't think Schindler's List, for example, caused anyone enjoyment. Some art can illuminate, some can be cathartic, and therefore be worthwhile without being fun.
I maintain that Greg's work, while sometimes grim, is enjoyable. Therefore it is fun.
Your point is dependent on your definition of fun. But that definition is not the actual definition of fun. You keep using fun to mean "funny" or "light-hearted" or "whimsical" or something similar.
The definition of fun, as an adjective, includes "causing enjoyment."
My point has been, all along, that when Greg says comics can be fun, and someone says "but your books are grim" they're misusing the word fun. If people enjoyed his books, his books were fun.
You say "I can take enjoyment from" something, then that something, by the defintion of the word 'fun' was fun for you.
I mostly just wanted to make the point that Greg's books, while often grim, are always fun for me, and I'd hate to think anyone thinks his comment about comics being fun was somehow problematic coming from him.
And, as others will testify, I also like to argue. :)
Which would mean Greg was saying that comics are supposed to be enjoyable, and that JLI is (and unlike his other two recommendations) enjoyable.
That's clearly not what he meant, and if he was saying "comics should be enjoyable," well, duh. I don't think Greg intended to say something so self-evident and meaningless. I don't think he's accusing creators out there of writing comics that people aren't meant to enjoy.
So . . . you're really off with this argument here.
And, honestly, I jumped in here because you came onto Greg's blog and effectively told him his comics were no fun.
And I don't think that's true, no matter how we define fun.
Let's use the simple logic formula:
If it's fun, it's enjoyable (no one's contesting this).
A -> B.
But you're saying, "therefore, if it's enjoyable, it's fun."
B -> A
This is NOT the logical inverse of A -> B, and it isn't true either.
The logic inverse is, if it's not enjoyable, it's not fun.
Not B -> Not A
I mean, for god's sake, could it be any simpler to understand?
This is not a logic equation. It is not part of the logic section of the GREs, it's part of the vocabulary section.
Read the definition I posted (and will post again):
Fun (adj) - providing entertainment, amusement, or enjoyment
That definition doesn't say that "it is one of the causes of enjoyment." It says it provides entertainment, amusement or enjoyment. Which means, by that definition, if it provides ANY of those three, it IS fun.
The words of the definition are clear. It doesn't say or imply that if it causes enjoyment, it MIGHT be fun, which is the only way your "A may equal B but B doesn't equal A" logic equation works.
By the definition I posted, by any measure of math, logic or the english language, then if something causes any one of those three states, it is defined as fun.
So, I say again, your measure of fun doesn't match Merriam-Webster's definition.
Now, others have argued that fun means something different to them than what the dictionary says. When others said as much, I played the role of dictionary gestapo, and even admitted I did so in jest.
But come on, dude... you came onto Greg's blog, insulted his work, and when I playfully corrected you, you decided to talk to me as if I'm an idiot.
The definition is there. You have a problem with it, write a new dictionary.
No.
If it is fun, it provides any of those three, NOT the reverse.
This is what you're saying:
"The dictionary says a dog is a highly variable domestic mammal. Therefore, if it's a mammal or it's domestic or it's highly variable, it's a dog." That's idiocy.
"you came onto Greg's blog, insulted his work"
No.
By twisting the meaning of the word "fun," you're miscontruing my compliment (that his stories are serious and still enjoyable without being fun) as an insult.
Is English not your native language? I can't see any other reason for you to be so absurdly confused over this.
But the ACTUAL definition of dog is: "canid; especially : a highly variable domestic mammal (Canis familiaris) closely related to the gray wolf"
Then, yes, we can say that all dogs are "canid(s), highly variable domestic mammal(s) closely related to the grey wolf" and yes that all "canid(s), highly variable domestic mammal(s) closely related to the grey wolf" are dogs.
The fact is, the definition of a word has to describe what that that word IS, not one of many things it COULD BE. If a definition only described something a word could be, it would be vague and unhelpful as a definition.
The definition of fun, as an adjective, says that something fun "causes enjoyment." It's that simple, honestly. You don't use the word that way, that's honestly your business, but you are using it in a way that is contrary to its definition.
And, yeah, coming in and telling Greg that him talking about comics needing to be fun is ironic because his books are not fun is, in fact, insulting. Even if you take your definition, you've accused him of being a hypocrite and couched it in the context of "not that you're being hypocritcal, but..." which is very similar to saying "I'm not saying you're fat, but I think you look heavy."
By choosing to couch my criticism of your behavior in a definition of a word and turning it into wordplay, I gave you a way out.
I'm sorry you didn't take it.
No. It's about usage and context. If every book we enjoy is "fun," then the word becomes meaningless, or at least, it becomes a direct synonym for "enjoyable," which would be a waste of a word, since we already have "enjoyable."
I'd forgotten about Mage. I'm going to have to pick that stuff up because I loved it when I read it before. I own the other two, though some of my Question books have vanished into the ether of 'loaned out'. I love Shiva, so Shiva lead me to Vic who I also fell in love with. I was so excited to see them collected.
Condolences on your laptop. Mine is in the process of a slow gradual death that I seem to be able to do very little about.
...sigh....
It was extremely cool to see that Blair used DETECTIVE as her book of the week (I could not agree more), but even more impressive was your segment on recommended books. Terrific choices! I really loved your excellent description of what made Denny O'Neil's work great, and just wanted to thank you for reminding the readers of today that comics can be fun. Great segment!
I especially like the comic over your right shoulder in the video. I should use that in promo material - The Stand by Aguirre-Sacasa and Perkins...Standing on the Shoulder of Giants!!
All the best
Mike
We've got to find something to work on together soon, man!
And can you imagine how heartbreaking it was for me to find out you were in Dallas the same week I was? I'm really upset I missed that, I even had my Cry For Blood floppies with me to show my brother the best storyline Vic Sage had ever been in! And Tec 854, of course. Couldn't find it in me to wait till I got back to Savannah to pick it up. Getting those signed would've been really cool.
I love your stuff, Mr. Rucka. Keep being you!